Tasering the Phillies Fan--Too Far?

I tell you what, a shotgun blast full of rock salt would have dropped him and dang sure sent a message to any other further knuckle heads who wanna play the crazy fan position..LOL...is that extreme?...hmmm it's that dang Texanese in me I guess...

Click to expand...

hahaha... i love it... i'm not from Texas but i do appreciate the creativity... that fan shouldn't have step onto the field and ran around like a douche.. i saw a hockey game once in Reno, Nevada and someone (drunk of course) wanted to play hockey without skates or pads... needless to say he got what he deserved.. a nice shoulder check into the board...

james

"Eskrima is a lot like music; start off by learning the basics.. with ample practice, dedication, and love, you can create a symphony" - unknown

Agreed - he's an idiot. And he is certainly faster than the officers trying to catch him. But I think the force continuum argument begs the question that the original "Taserification of America" article asked originally, i.e. "Is it legitimate to taser someone, who, at that moment of being an idiot, poses no direct physical threat to himself or anyone else?"

Notice that for Level Four it says that tasers should be deployed "when the suspect is violent or threatening..." and that it "can be especially useful for controlling non-criminal violent behavior (emphasis mine), such as persons who are mentally impaired, or under the influence of mind-altering substances. Tasers can be used (like batons and pepper spray that are also described on this level) after Level Three techiques (empty hand techniques that are either "soft" or "hard" depending on the level of potential injury incurred by the perpetrator) have been tried and have failed. Level Three techniques are designed to counter a suspects "aggression" and can include guiding, holding, and restraining techniques as well as punches and kicks to specific targets (the brachial plexus for example) that have a moderate risk of injury for the suspect.

Running like an idiot through a baseball stadium is not especially violent or threatening or aggressive. It's annoying and frustrating and an inconvenience to all others who have to stand and watch and wait, especially those whose job it is to stop the idiot whose doing it.

Best,

Steve

Click to expand...

That is an example of a use of force that many departments use (based on PPCT's original idea). The issue is that "intermediate weapons" such as the baton are a different level of force than pepper spray. In many policies, pepper spray can be used after verbal commands are used if you can articulate why you thought soft/hard empty hand control tactics did not or would not work. TASER also falls under this category in the use of force. Yes, it can be used for higher levels of force. But, the policies also allow for the use of the TASER in lower levels of force too when it is thought that the higher levels would result in more injury to the suspect or officer.

Again, it's easy to watch the footage of the event and say that it was only a kid being an idiot. But, the law doesn't allow for armchair quarterbacking. The law views what the officer had available to him AT THAT MOMENT for information. In this case, all they knew is someone ran onto the field and was getting closer to the infield and the players and was evading arrest and not complying with commands. They also know from past history that people have done that and assaulted players and in one case stabbed a player. They are paid to assume worst case scenario to assure the safety of players and fans alike.

Again, it's easy to watch the footage of the event and say that it was only a kid being an idiot. But, the law doesn't allow for armchair quarterbacking. The law views what the officer had available to him AT THAT MOMENT for information. In this case, all they knew is someone ran onto the field and was getting closer to the infield and the players and was evading arrest and not complying with commands. They also know from past history that people have done that and assaulted players and in one case stabbed a player. They are paid to assume worst case scenario to assure the safety of players and fans alike.

Click to expand...

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment here...we know fans in the past have seriously injured people on the field. If the taser had failed to operate, say, and they couldn't catch him, would using their firearm to keep him from reaching the players have been reasonable? (Ignore for the moment the safety issue of using it in a crowded stadium.) I think assuming the worst case scenario might be too much.

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment here...we know fans in the past have seriously injured people on the field. If the taser had failed to operate, say, and they couldn't catch him, would using their firearm to keep him from reaching the players have been reasonable? (Ignore for the moment the safety issue of using it in a crowded stadium.) I think assuming the worst case scenario might be too much.

Click to expand...

With the facts known at the time, no it would not be reasonable. With the facts known at the time, yes it was reasonable to TASER.
Use of the TASER is one of the lowest levels of force for many departments. Firearms are used ONLY in Deadly Force situations. So it really is apples and oranges there.

I should have worded the last sentence a little better in my previous post.